Category: Nothingness
-
The Two Opposites of ‘Nothing’ and the Logical Irreducibility of Being
This entry is part of the ongoing debate with the Opponent. It is interesting that 'nothing' has two opposites. One is 'something.' Call it the logical opposite. The other is 'being.' Call it the ontological opposite. Logically, 'nothing' and 'something' are interdefinable quantifiers: D1. Nothing is F =df It is not the case that something is F.…
-
Heidegger, Carnap, Das Nichts, and the Analytic-Continental Schism
One of the reasons I gave this weblog the title Maverick Philosopher is because I align neither with the analytic nor with the Continental camp. Study everything, I say, and drink from every stream. Reverting to the camp metaphor, when did the camps become two? In dead earnest this occurred when Heidegger burst onto the…
-
Could There Have Been Nothing at All?
As a matter of fact, things exist. But suppose I try to think the counterfactual state of affairs of there being nothing, nothing at all. Can I succeed in thinking pure nothingness? Is this thought thinkable? Is it thinkable that there be nothing at all? And if it is, does it show that it is…
-
Angst and the Empty Set
When I first saw this article, I thought to myself, "Oh boy, another load of stinking, steaming, scientistic bullshit by some know-nothing science writer or physicist for me to sink my logic shovel into!" You have heard it said, 'Take the bull by the horns.' But I say unto you, 'Take the bull by the…
-
The Militant Nihilism of Radical Islam
I don't believe I have ever read a column by Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club that is more penetrating, thought-provoking, or chilling than his Seven Gambit. Excerpts: Just as soon as Israel accepted an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire Hamas fired 47 rockets killing one Israeli citizen. Anyone who has followed the conflict could have predicted this…
-
Lukas Novak on Reference to What is Not
Our Czech friend Lukas Novak sent me a paper in which, drawing upon John Duns Scotus, he rejects the following principle of reference: (PR) It is impossible to refer to that which is not. In this entry I will first pull some quotations from Novak's paper and then raise some questions about the view he…
-
Some Notes on Rescher’s “Nonexistents Then and Now”
A reader inquires: Have you read Nicholas Rescher's Nonexistents Then and Now? I read it recently and thought I'd bring it to your attention because it's relevant to your recent posts on fiction. If I understand the article, Rescher would agree with you that a fictional man is not a man, but he would say…
-
The Two Opposites of ‘Nothing’
It is interesting that 'nothing' has two opposites. One is 'something.' Call it the logical opposite. The other is 'being.' Call it the ontological opposite. Logically, 'nothing' and 'something' are interdefinable: D1. Nothing is F =df It is not the case that something is F D2. Something is F =df it is not the case that nothing…
-
A Tension in My Thinking: Hume Meets Parmenides
I recently wrote the following (emphasis added): According to David Hume, "Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent." (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) I've long believed Hume to be right about this. I would put it this way, trading Latin for plain Anglo-Saxon: Our minds are necessarily such that, no matter what…
-
David Albert Disinvited from Nothingness Conference
Here.
-
Holes and Their Mode of Being
Consider a particular hole H in a piece of swiss cheese. H is not nothing. It has properties. It has, for example, a shape: it is circular. The circular hole has a definite radius, diameter, and circumference. It has a definite area equal to pi times the radius squared. If the piece of cheese is 1/16th…
-
Farewell to Krauss, A Universe From Nothing
The book is due back at the library today, and good riddance. A few parting shots to put this turkey to bed. The book is a mishmash of bad philosophy, badly written, and popularization of contemporary cosmology. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the popularization, but the philosophy is indeed bad and demonstrates why we…
-
Wittgenstein and Rejectionism
I characterized Rejectionism with respect to the question why there is anything at all as follows: "The rejectionist rejects the question as ill-formed, as senseless." London Ed suggests that Wittgenstein may be lumped in with the rejectionists. He has a point, though I do insist on the distinction between taking 'Why is there anything at…
-
Siger of Brabant on Why Something Rather Than Nothing
London Ed offers this quick, over-breakfast but accurate as far as I can tell translation from the Latin (available at Ed's site): For not every being has a cause of its being, nor does every question about being have a cause. For if it is asked why there is something in the natural world rather…
-
A Catalog of Possible Types of Response to ‘Why Is There Anything At All?’
By my count there are seven possible types of response to the above question, which I will call the Leibniz question. I will give them the following names: Rejectionism, Mysterianism, Brutalism, Theologism, Necessitarianism, Nomologism/Axiologism, and Cosmologism. As far as I can see, my typology, or rather my emendation of Rescher's typology, is exhaustive. All possible…